Some general opening statements that reflect a few concerns being brought
up by those who are fed up with the government as it is presently being practiced:

We acknowledge that the usage of an Initiative and Referendum process is the
the expressed practice of a political system that treats the Collective Will of
of the people as an after-thought to function as a last resort instead of as a
first resort; as would be the case in a Nation predicated on an Actual Democracy
formulated by the premise of an established Of, By and For All The People dedication.

We acknowledge that voting is a privilege and that millions of eligible voters
do not participate in the current political process because they justly feel that
the political system is rigged against both their individual and collective opinions...

Otherwise, there would be no need for an electoral college when a U.S. President is
chosen, which permits the Will of the People to be undermined.

Any and all Social issues could readily be discussed and voted on by the public
and that vote carry into the adoption of a law via the usage of a mandatory referendum
and not a last ditch initiative effort, whether or not the currently established
Branches of government agreed with the Will of the People.

The Supreme Court (or any court) should not be permitted to legislate laws from
the bench, since they are neither a legislative body nor were they elected by the people
to perform such a function. Allowing any body of government to set itself above the
Will of the People is a type of Monarchial Aristocracy, the very thing the people
in many lands, including the U.S. has fought against.

Stated directly, there would be no need for an Initiative and Referendum provision,
since the initiative of the People would be a given and the Referendum a natural
procedure of the legal process... and is not effected into practice as an 'on again...off
again' Hail Mary pass. The right of the people to be legally affirmed as a definitive
part of the Checks and Balances formula must be Constitutionally established under
the control of the public who will play an active, legal, and consistent roll in
the Checks and Balances schematic.

The people have the right to establish their own Legislative Representative
body to ensure any and all public complaints can be discussed and voted on by the
People themselves, and the result carried into law. Current governing processes
can interject revisions and supplementations based on specialized knowledge not
previously considered, but the Will of the People will be the deciding factor. If
necessary, a whole new Constitution can be written as part of the people's right to
Administrate, Alter, or Abolish the government as they see fit... in order to create
a better one as they so Will it... even if the forefathers and foremothers did not
have the foresight to include the word "Administrate" in the first Declaration,
though its activity is nonetheless egregiously practiced according to the Will
established by a governing minority; that loves to put up obstacles to distract
the public from exercising a concerted effort towards a collectively singular goal
outside the parameters of established governing processes which serve to minimize
the effectiveness of the Public Will.

In our efforts to establish a New Government (Cenocracy), a program must be outlined
in describing efforts to be taken. This is an intended large non-profit public education
undertaking to be implemented. Necessarily so, it is an advertising campaign. Not only
the public but those directly involved in the Cenocracy effort must be fully aware of
the goal and the steps to be taken, with additions and deletions applied as necessary.
We must also describe what we are not attempting to do, such as placing a particular
candidate in office, which means we do not have to register as a political organization.
It must be clearly established that we do not want to use violence nor the threat of
violence, though a larger philosophical discussion inevitably exercises an appreciation
of historical reality concerning those who want to reform a government and those in
government who somehow automatically think they will be explicitly targeted for
Removal.

As far as we are concerned, any and all who are employed by the government may
keep their positions as provided by conditions of employment, so long as they truly
lead us towards establishing a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic Formula... in other words,
the adoption of an Actual Democracy and not some shuffling of the present
falsified Democratic governance. If they will not lead us, then we ask them to follow
our lead. If they will do neither of these options, then we ask them to vacate their
position so that one who is better suited to the Will of The People will be employed.
If they refuse again, measures will have to be taken to forcefully remove them.

As part of the education process will be the need to create a Nation-wide protest-with-petition.
This is a petition for a redress of grievances in as much as it is a protest demanding
a Cenocracy. The current design of government and how it is practiced, has led to too
many recurring social problems... one of which is the inescapable realization that
the presently practiced governing formula is not an Actual Democracy.

— With respect to voting, because many people feel they lack any other
established means of voicing a protest, they use the behavior of non-voting as a
type of placard which emphasizes the view that the present practices of Democracy
marginalize, minimize, disenfranchise and even ostracizes the public from direct
participation in the overall governing processes. Hence, their non-vote is their
selected activity of voting, just as someone else might prefer to write-in a "None
Of The Above" selection as a third option to voting between the lesser of two or
more evils or casting a vote by way of not voting. Far too many come away with the
perspective that their view does not matter and there is no current means of reforming
such a disgraceful currency of political practice. Unfortunately, it sets into play
an entrenching mindset on non-participation.

And yet, many of us acknowledge that even if everyone voted for a single person
who was unanimously supported by every person in business, religion and government;
it is quite likely the person could not make the necessary comprehensive changes
needed because they will work within the parameters of a system which rewards the
status quo and punishes the visionary path finders... particularly if the sighted
path leads the people along a journey of exploration that may disavow the need for
one or another business, government or religious model... or some internalized practice
thereof. All such entities might well work together to suppress any and all who
come to represent a new schematic which identifies the need for a diminishing
authoritative role in order to create a greater realization for the well-being of
a community, nation, and species... be that species human or otherwise.

Simply changing one politician for another or one legislature for another does
not forcefully equate with a beneficial change of the overall system. They work
within the system likes rats running a maze because they have left their scents
along the corridors and know where, when, as well as how to acquire at least some
portion of the cheese that most people are kept from by one or another set-in-place
rule, observance, or law that selectively minimizes the larger public from being
able to readily participate; and instead creates conditions presenting illusions
of participation such as the current voting process (which also involves the
inability to portray alternative social/governing paths of consideration that could
be collectively voted on).

Others who continue to vote but may nonetheless harbor the feeling that its value
is greatly minimized, to the point of almost complete insignificance; do so by a
personal philosophy that they are "making a statement" (and are thus somehow being
heard more so than if they cast a vote otherwise). While many of appreciate
these efforts and can both sympathize as well as empathize, such behaviors are of
little value if the end result substantiates the growing complaint that the political
system, with respect to a so-called Democracy; is presented as a common-sense type of
evidence which reveals the system as being broken... And yet, retrospectively, it
was implemented in its broken state from its inception. While we give credit to the
forefathers (and foremothers) for their efforts, they were, as seen from a modern
perspective, significantly flawed. That being practiced is not a "peoples government",
it is a menagerie of Aristocratic Plutocracies which may change hands from decade
to decade... but the people remain without an Actual Democracy.

Many people realize the system needs to be dramatically changed but feel helpless
as to how this might be accomplished, when those in power have vast monetary resources
at their disposal and use such resources against a public that is blind-sided by
their own personal political agendas they keep themselves from collaborating in a
single effort that would enable them to establish the means to address their
individual agendas. Indeed, many people hold very naive political perceptions or
concentrate on the minutiae of a singular political instance that they are well
informed about. In other words, they concentrate their efforts and energies in one
area so much that they acquire what may be described as an expert perspective but
can not see beyond the boundaries of their singular focus and thus put up a barrier
that keeps others at bay... like an animal that circles a given terrain and marks
it as their own to keep all would-be travelers at a distance from the territory
they have staked a claim as their own. However, it is found that both the presumed
expert and those who are politically naive may not have read (from start to finish)
the Declaration of Independence.

In one instance while describing the point in the Declaration about the right of
the people to alter or abolish the government in order to create a better one, a
female cashier asked "Then why aren't we doing it?". When it was then noted that
the government had established a law prohibiting its overthrow, she despondently
said "See"... meaning that the people are even being denied a right to assert a
right to fix the problems even though such an idea was established as a given (in
the initial Independence Declaration)... as a means of addressing a wrong (in that
a select few are enabled to think and speak for the whole of the public); by a
documented provision which is identified as a precedent in exerting a Just Cause.
In short, the public needs to be educated about our efforts to pursue governing
reform. Writing our views on the internet is not enough. Every single person must
come to reconcile their own philosophically designed obstacles in order to make a
stand to push for a Cenocracy. We can start by repeating the phrase:
"We The People Demand A Cenocracy!", and use
the momentum to carry forth into an actual governing practice where all our
political concerns are addressed and voted on by the people.

We The people need a Cenocracy... a New Government... because the system as it
is presently practiced has failed us and those elected to serve within the adopted
parameters will continue to fail us no matter who they are. Analogously, adding
curtains to the windows of an Independence Restricting institution, however it be
named, does not change its underlying architecture when that scaffolding is used
to dictate form, function and fraternity of a person's thought. The adoption of a
New Government will necessitate the adoption of a new Bill of Rights as well as a
new Constitution which has its beginning in dealing with the realities of today.
Such a perspective is not a call for relegating the whole of the past into a state
of obsolescence, but highlights that a Constitution should initially be drafted from an
acknowledgment of basic Rights for everyone; thus demanding that Equal Rights be
given its due as a preeminent view and not as some after-thought amendment that
becomes aligned with legislated loopholes. Hence, Equal Rights should not be assigned
the sole placement of becoming an amendment, clause, or diminutively printed inclusion—
nor commensurately identified addition-to as a disgruntled (but disclaimer-ed) concession...
but stated as a fundamental right in terms of a foundation upon which a new Constitution
can be drafted and ratified Of, By and For All the people. We need to start anew...
as fresh as we can because the present practice of adding amendments has created a
crud layering effect that has produced the conditions of a bog we are mired in
and spinning our wheels... from one election campaign to the next.

A falsified Democracy requires its underlying structure to be architectured with
the facade of being ideally suited to a practiced phoneyism— and its governing
officials to adopt, and thus reflect, the necessary falsifications in order to
better function within its parameters. Hence, the recurrence of the public to be
faced with voting for the lesser of two or more evils... which is the one who best
portrays the necessary level of being able to contribute to maintaining and
perpetuating the falsification of Democracy (or Socialism, or Communism, etc...,
not to mention various beliefs in a similar Religious orientation each accepting
themselves as the bona fide truth or the advertising gimmicks of businesses).
Businesses, governments and religions all have a strategy of using their belief
structures as strategies for acquiring survival sustenance, be it money or otherwise.
It is not that the making or securing of one or another type of battering currency
is wrong as a genuinely shared commodity with the same equity for everyone; but
it is wrong when it is accrued by way of exploitation where the purported mutual
gain produces violations of rights or morality or other avenues which lead the
public astray.

The government and corporations are instigating the conditions where the public
consciousness is being forced to see itself being preyed upon and must choose to:

Submit (and adopt a philosophy of denial and supportive rationalizations)

Try to flee or appear "neutral" (such as staying off the grid, not buying
computers, keeping away from discussing the topic, professing patriotism in the
presence of those peers who monitor and judge "politically correct" social behavior
etc...)

Fight back (by using various techniques such as protesting, fighting fire
with fire, behind the scenes efforts to thwart "the enemies of the people" activity,
etc...).

Yep, we are headed along a path where not only is the public being forced to
sign a legal acceptance to be spied on, technology is being specifically upgraded
to make it easier to know who you are, where you are, and eventually tell you what
you are supposed to be doing, thinking and feeling (in order to fulfill the agendas
of corporations— aligned with the current governing system that creates laws
favoring this philosophy). Do the People have to speak more loudly by executing a
few thousand business executives and government officials? Again and again and again,
throughout history, the public has been left with no recourse but turn to violence.
This is disgusting to contemplate, but appears to be an inevitability. When we have
corporations and the government practicing selective hearing, there is but one
recourse and that is Revolution.

Eavesdropping on the public has taken many forms such as the "confession" so often
used by Religions disguised in the philosophy that it cleanses the soul, and has been
adopted by counselors and psychologists as a tool of persuasion as well. Whereas
governments in the past used torture, intimidation and the like, it now most often
uses contrive laws that the general public rarely gets to vote on. And though
corporations such as insurance companies have relied on actuarial tables as a
means of "understanding" the behavior of the public in order to best align its
efforts of practicing its protectionist racket; other corporations have engaged in
the sharing of personal data in a wide-spread practice of anti-trust activity...
supported by the government who is heavily suffused in the same sort of under-the-table
commerce of the public's personal information. Reviewing public information in order
to thwart illegal activity is one thing, using the information to manipulate the
public is quite another.

The present government is a falsified democratic legitimacy by way of convoluted
rationalizations decreed by an un-Representative government creating laws just-in-case
those in authority are confronted by one or more in the public who protest. For
example, though the Declaration of Independence says it is the Right of the People
to alter or abolish the government in order to create a better one, and the people
are given the right to protest... the government has created a law which legitimizes
its use of force, fine, or imprisonment to insure fealty from the public. In short,
there is a hypocritical law prohibiting the people from over-throwing the government
which enables the government to intercede against the people with any and all measures
it deems necessary to remain, restore, and refuse to budge on its perspective,
regardless of what the people collectively think... a view that is never allowed
to be collected or presented. Indeed, the government through its media-aligned
sources wants to ensure the collective Will of the People remains in a scattered
brain state of affairs as attested to by encouraging disparities in political
perspectives and agendas amongst the public. It prefers the usage of inciting the
public to rally around the concerted opinion and personal objectives of government
officials that have no vision and are not true path finders.

In an Associated Press article by Brahima Ouedraogo of 9/17/15 entitled "Military
in Burkina Faso confirms coup, dissolves government", we find the statement: "The
United States strongly condemns any attempt to seize power through extra-constitutional
means or resolve internal political disagreements using force," said a statement
issued by State Department spokesman John Kirby.

Such a stance is ridiculous given the fact that a government-in-power does not
necessarily nor readily yield to the requests for government change even if there
is an over-riding desire by the people to have one. Very often the people are left
with no recourse but to depend on one or another group, be they a military-oriented
unit or otherwise, to assert the Will of the people to have an alteration in the
government. While many, if not most of us agree that the usage of force is undesirable,
what else are the people to do if those in a government simply say no? Take the
government to a Supreme Court which is part of the problem? Surely we can not expect
any branch of government to side with the people since a reform of government may
be interpreted by members therein to mean a loss of employment. What do the people
do when the government protects itself through its own legal structuring, regardless
if the people want a change or not? It will do whatever it needs to maintain itself
in power. Change laws, call Martial law, release deadly viruses, increase public
fear levels, instigate economic problems, start a war, work with confederates to
create internal destruction, etc...

The people can't depend on a Legislature, the Supreme Court nor an Executive
Branch if they refuse to relinquish control so that a better functional government
can be established. Whereas some will claim they have a right to remain in office
because they were elected, the problem is there is no similar way in which the people
can unelect them. Once someone gets into office, they use the associated laws of
their postion to carry out ulterior motives that are not necessarily in the best
interests of the people. Nobody in their right mind wants to resort to violence and
destruction. Such actions frequently take place after peaceful attempts have been
made. Did the government listen to the protests of those in the Occupy movement?
Absolutely not or it would have been a televised announcement to this end. The same
goes for those who have protested on behalf of an Equal Rights Amendment, and other
Rights lacking in our lives as well (environmental, animal, immigration, etc...).

For those in or out of government to claim that there is no visible over-riding
assertion that there exists a majority of citizens who want the government to be
altered to the design of an "Actual Democracy", belies the fact that many of the
majority feel it is a hopeless case to protest against a government that is insensitive
to the larger population with respect to desiring a Right to have Self-Representation
as outlined in a Cenocratic formula of governance. There is no way for the government
to know because there is no way for the collective Will of the people to be known.
Only a few get any real access to any of the three Branches of government. The
stupidity of the present design of government is pathetic. A government that says
it doesn't like the usage of force to implement government change is a government
of hypocrisy when itself was established by this route. It uses such a statement
as a means to attempt a legal precedent which gives it the right to squash attempts
to alter its authority by using force. It doesn't want anyone using force but it's
OK that it does for its own purposes that are often-times developed by way of
rationalizations.

The established falsification of Democracy being played out creates a social
atmosphere from which is derived an old expression referring to the mode and manner
one's behavior is expected to be portrayed. Hence, for some, the phrase "While in
Rome do as the Romans do" will be easily understood, others have a need for the
same idea to be placed into a modern context to the extent that there is a need
for such a phrase as "While living in a false democracy one must adopt similar
modes and manners of falsification"... in order to exist. In so doing, particularly
if one is brought up to define the present social circumstances in naive terms;
they will believe that their unrealized expressed beliefs about the present government
system is a standard of truth without equal. They are so immersed in the falsification
they are unable to see the hypocrisies being played out.

For some, the awakened realization that they are living in a culture of so many
falsehoods being perpetrated by various professional organizations who are striving
to exist within such conditions; creates varying types and levels of depression.
Such a circumstance is being used by some as a means to exploit the public to seek
assistance through them. Like charities that thrive on the perpetual conditions of
poverty that they don't actually want to bring to an end, medical professions focused
on treating various models of depression want the people to believe in their philosophical
perspective, with respect to depression, since it is a tool by which they can best
advertise their services for their own economic viability. If not the existence of
an actual depression, then some proportioned image of make-believe existence with
the expectation that you play a role that they attempt to direct you in, like the
drama in a staged scene by which others will, literally, buy in to... so that the
treatment facility, like a theater company, can create an audience in order to
perpetuate a long-standing stage run for sustained income.

Many professions: of which only a few need be mentioned... such as educational,
medical, manufacturing, food distribution, religion, insurance entities, and of
course the government, all play a part in contributing to economic disparity... though
the desire for an increased minimum wage is not counter-balanced by a decreased
maximum wage, is adding to overall social burdens. Such institutions are all part
of a system which practices a falsified Democracy by mixing and matching their own
varieties of falsification as a survival mechanism within the same cesspool. They have
learned to position themselves in the most advantage positions within the bog, the
quicksand, though every move may not be as economically sound as some other perspective.
And yet, many believe that what they do is not a tool box of varying falsifications...
because they are unable to make the distinction since the idea of an "Actual Democracy"
and its ensuing social conditions is far removed from their contemplated efforts
to imagine something better than that which they have been brought up in. To suggest
the adoption of a government which presents them with considerations they have not
thought of nor imagined, may well create levels of consternation which create varying
exercises of panic and depression.

Professionals and professional organizations are not immune from experiencing
such fears since a falsified Democracy can create daily doses of paranoia at deeper
levels amongst professionals because they often straddle a thin line between sanity,
talent/creativity/giftedness or genius, and insanity; brought about by the conflicts
produced by self-acknowledged hypocrisies they play out. No matter their sincere
desire to address individual problems, when the root cause of varying individual
problems is brought about by the larger social governing environment, they too become
part of the underlying problem. Yet, astonishingly, think themselves part of a
solution and if given the opportunity, will force any and all detractors to adopt
their perspective through medical, legal or brute force.

When multiple organizations and institutions are confronted with the possibility
that they may need to dramatically and drastically change their organizational
philosophy, many of them may join together to try to force their detractors to
drink hemlock like Socrates was, because it was claimed by the established so-called
professionals of his day that he was corrupting the young with his views. More and
more people began to think differently and not in line with that which assisted
the business cartels in manipulating the public for their personal agendas. Yet, in
knowing this, the professionals of today do not know that their detractors have also
begun to adopt the perspective of making the professionals taste their own prescribed
hemlock medicine, in whatever shape or form it must take.

—With respect to establishing a Peoples Legislative Branch, the people need their
own hands-on ability to adopt honest, accurate and effective change in governance
by way of an applied Cenocratic formula, and not be expected to comply with the
current nonsense of suspending their Will by way of a practiced form of legalized
censorship which minimizes the ability of the public to straighten out the recurring
mess they are subjected to by those mentality becomes institutionalized by the
current government structure. Some of those currently in governing positions will
not be able to adopt a new intellectual currency and will try to enforce current
standards of political compliance-through-complacency with its established orientation
towards superficiality of change.

The thinking of many of those in governing leadership positions, which includes
business and religious leaderships; is considerably constrained by the exiting
paradigms of a false (less than complete... less than actual) democracy
unless We The People insist on forcing the alteration of governing leadership
mindsets due to the current governing institutionalization they are subjected to,
and want to create laws in order to force the public to comply with in order to
make their mentality appear logically consistent. Unless We the People use whatever
means is necessary to help establish a better governing process, those who find
themselves in leadership may not develop the necessary analytical tools vitally
important to our communities, our nations and our humanity... nor effective in the
forthcoming Cenocracy with an applied Cenocratic formula.

In promoting the direction of a path towards a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic formula,
it may be of value for some to recognize its equivalency of development by way of
an analogy to those who acquire a Nobel Prize in one or another scientific field.
Such efforts are notoriously fraught with stumbling blocks, detours, and various
serendipitous (accidental) events along the course of development. Mistakes are
made, blunders and deficiencies acknowledged (and retrospectively laughed about
because of the humor attached to such bumbling caricatures... as well as the stupefied
looks from so-called normal people who may think such efforts as being skewed
towards some 'Don-ned on Quixofication' (a quixotic appearance) or some politically
incorrect funny farm); all of which occur along a path that others may view as
theoretically impossible to achieve... like the establishment of an Actual
Democracy. And Actual Democracy is an achievable and desirable goal to be
reached under the direction of a leader who encourages the whole of the public to
lead the way for themselves.

Nonetheless, let it be acknowledged that we are fully cognizant that there exists
laws established by the government and not through an accepted vote of the people,
that it is against the law concerning an over-throw of the government. Committing such
acts as outlined, can get you fined or imprisoned... though their existence is little
known by the public and are not made public... but are in existence as a just-in-case
law... just in case the government feels threatened by anyone's efforts to alter
or abolish the government to create changes for the better of society beyond the
established parameters of those who are in some position of authority. Those in
authority have learned how to navigate the established parameters of the governing
process and do not want to be confronted by alterations which would suggest conditions
for which they are not suited and must be replaced.

Whereas the people are allowed to protest as a given right, the protest can not
exceed the boundaries of allowance that are arbitrarily defined according to the
perspective of those in governing positions; no matter how sincerely intentioned
the protest is... which permits the government to deem those involved as being unlawful.
In other words, it is against the law for the people to make improvements to the
government unless they occur through established channels which give those in
authority an opportunity to mangle the changes according to their own agendas which
often undermines the Will of the People... and is the very thing a despotic government
thinks is appropriate because it feels it is endowed with supremacy of intelligence,
wisdom, insight and foresight simply because of the position they hold. Even if you
have a vision that can not be applied through present governing processes because
they are impediments, you must frame your protest efforts from the perspective of
wanting government reform and not that you want to overthrow the government. Such
semantics is the game used by those in government to undermine the Will of the People.
Those in government will semantically frame a situation in a positive or negative
light to suit their position for retaining authority... no matter how wrong they
are.

18 U.S.C. §2383 (deals with rebellion and insurrection)

18 U.S.C. §2384 (deals with seditious conspiracy)

18 U.S.C. §2385 (for those who advocate the overthrow of the government)

(U.S.C. = United States Code; the double-S symbol "§" means section)

Yet, even though the reasons for wanting to overthrow the government may be valid
and justified, the government can bring a case against anyone that it deems to be
an "enemy of the State". If you become influential in your protest to the extent
the government feels threatened, you might well be cited with the charge of committing
a criminal act. So make sure your banners emphasize that you want to reform the
government through a creative, novel and original way; and consider that you might
have to display the word "overthrow" with a line crossed through it
in order to avert the possibility of its interjection by the government in order
to be used an argument by way of negative definition which then entitles it to abuse
you in whatever way it wants... according to its self-designed laws. The government
provides the public with a mickey mouse avenue of dead ended detours for redressing
grievances and forces the people to use protests as a means of expressing a collective
voice. The government likes the laws stacked against the public, and if existing laws
are not enough, those in Congress (or any legislative body) can enact new ones to
suit their views... that is if the courts don't readily interpret laws in their favor.
The public's ability is minimized to favor those in controlling positions, even if
those positions were obtained by a very questionable voting system.

The right of the people to Administrate, Alter or Abolish the government for the
purpose of creating one that better suits the Will of the People, must be reinstated
without penalty. It is absurd for a Government predicated on the proposition of
being dedicated to a premise that declares itself to be one that is Of, By and For
(All) the people... and thus identifying itself to be the largest government in
the world; to practice the hypocrisy that it is against the law for the people to
overthrow their government. This is like telling
a property owner they can't tear down a structure for the purposes of building one
that suits their needs better. No matter if it is termite infested or crawling with
any number of vermin, the owner is not permitted to tear down an edifice deemed an
historical structure, they are only permitted to refurbish it to its original state,
dictated by prevailing government self-serving interests of self-preservation.

Whereas permits are frequently required for destruction as well as construction,
such can be made the provision for a public wanting to do the same to their
government. If 18 U.S.C. §2383, §2384, §2385 are not to be rewritten to exclude
the public in its expressed Will to create a better functioning State of affairs
through the process of over-throwing the government if need be, nor provisioned with
an inalienable permit to rescind them by the Will of the People seeking to create a
better government, then the people must invoke its Right to seize the government
from any and all of its acting despots... like so many publics in the past have done
so in other both historical and overlooked contexts; though those in authority routinely
think the public is without the concerted wherewithal to conduct such a protest against
those who presume they have an established pedigree to do as they please for their
own motives. Now, once again, the public is being placed into a position of teaching
those in authority a lesson about a Declared Independence. It is not that so many
in governing positions repeat history because they have forgotten it, but because
they never really knew it and could not avoid the pitfalls of repetition.

The words in the former Independence Declaration:

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed... that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness...

Clearly the time has come for the people to overthrowalter or
abolish the present government because many people neither feel safe nor happy.
And though the forefathers forgot to include the word "Health" as a distinct criteria,
we of today can improve upon the many short-comings of those early years. Either directly
because of what the government does or does not do, the people need to make dramatic
alterations in the present governing processes in order to create conditions which
will enable safety, happiness and health to prosper. (The word "overthrow" is struck
through because the government has a law against itself being over-thrown... even
though such a law is hypocritically stupid in light of the statements of the earlier
Independence Declaration.)

Those in government, without the consent of the people, have trampled on the
Independence Declaration to effect self-serving ends, though it hypocritically
pretends to honor the document through diligently observed care and a falsified
obeisance that everyone is supposed to respect and defer to as if it is a hallowed
transcript. Yes, they want the public to be duped into believing they too hold
the former Independence Declaration in a sanctified regard, but in actuality, they
soil it with legalized hypocrisy. Those advocating a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic
Formula want to create a better government. We prefer not to use violence and
destruction, but it is well known that when those in power are frightened about
losing their control, they themselves very often use violence and destruction,
on various levels... be they physical, emotional, intellectual, economic, spiritual,
communal, familial, or whatever. They will lie, cheat steal and do whatever it takes
to retain the upper-hand. They will threaten, accuse, or try to defame. They will
create, embellish or withhold any information through their willing media advocates,
in order to produce a negative public reaction. If the government needs a witness
or document to support its case, it will fabricate such like a skilled counterfeiter
and use words or phrases such as "official", "legal", "authoritative", "credible
evidence", etc., or make itself appear either as an underdog or as some unquestionable
'law of the land' infallibility. It will do whatever to whomever it pleases, including
the instigation of arranging an "accidental" death take place.

.

Even if you, as a protestor or as a Revolutionist plainly and clearly voice a
desire for non-violence in your efforts at governing reform, those in power
are without any compunction for doing whatever is necessary to accomplish their
ends and make you appear as an undesirable protagonist while they are an underdog
deserving of unquestionable assistance and support that they will align with the
word "patriotism" to make its believers feel warm and bubbly about. Though the
government, just like religions and corporations are capable of enormous good;
beneath the cloak of public charm is a many-headed serpent... each with its own
arsenal of tools, language and vocabulary that it needs to practice on occasion
in order not to lose the functionality thereof.

On the one hand, this is the image the government wants the public to feel all warm
and fuzzy about as it is displayed in the National Archives... presenting the Declaration
as a one of a kind virtuous document for all of us to pay homage to with unblemished
reverence the public should prostrate itself to.

In July of 2011, a Dunlap Broadside copy of the Declaration was shown at the Eisenhower
Presidential Library in Abilene, Kansas. The word rare is commonly attached
to this copy because it is said only 25 copies were made. However, this is yet
another example of different respectful ways the public is subjected to the very
document, in variously staged settings and accompaniments, that is being soiled,
with respect to the present discussion about the Right of the people to Overthrow
their government. In this instance, two police officers
sprouting uniforms which function as projecting an emblazoned cross on their torso,
who in effect, stand on guard like Christian Soldiers participating in an hypocrisy
that they, like so many others, are oblivious to. It is rather stupid for the (fashionable)
'political correctness' of a society to expect citizens to respect a document that
is urinated, defecated and puked on by the very government attempting to use it as a
badge, a medallion, a medal of highest regard that no one has the right to denounce...
yet the government does anyway.

...And yet, let us emphasize, that on the other hand, the contents of the Independence
Declaration are being treated by the government as a throw-away, flush it down the
toilet piece of refuse, with respect to the right of the people being able to
overthrow the government as stated in this very document. By having a law which
denies the right of the people to overthrow their government under any circumstance
those in governing positions arbitrarily deem appropriate to create a better one
is nothing less than an antagonism— a type of chip on the shoulder of an
Imperialistically dictatorial mindset that dares the people to question its authority
about binding the people to a mental slavery of duplicity.

See the discussion on this page:

Whereas on December 15, 1791, the right to Bear Arms was part of the first ten
amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The right to alter or abolish the
government did not need to be directly addressed by an amendment, because it was
viewed as a basic sense common to all people endowed by an unimpeachable quality
by their Creator, which has been lost as time has moved forward to the present and
the continued fight for our rights, and in particular, even the right to fight for
them, have been abused, marginalized and even denoted as an illegality. No persons
of conscience should stand for such nonsense.

And with respect to this growing nonsense, it is discovered that people are
not only not given an automatic right to the fifth amendment since the right has
to be openly declared, the people must also speak up with respect to their right
to remain silent. The right to remain silent is not an automatic advantage bestowed
on anyone. You must publicly announce your right to remain silent in order to
receive this right. However, whereas if you exercise a right to remain silent, those
who are monitoring your right may decide that anything you say, even if you repeatedly
ask for water, restroom and shower breaks, clean and comfortable bedding, medical
assistance, a phone call, legal assistance, etc., or even singing/humming/whistling
a particular song... such expressions may arbitrarily used to claim that you have
given up your right to remain silent. Even though talking is a natural effect of
the human condition, you may not be able to exercise such a natural right in some
circumstances. Yeh, I know it sounds stupid, but so is a law against the public
being able to overthrow a government found to be wanting.

Here are a few examples of the discussion about the so-called Right to Remain Silent—
which reflects how even the "Supreme" Court can come up with Supremely idiotic rulings:

One must wonder if a person that is mute would have their silence interpreted as
a bull horn of confession... but also emphasizes the need for the public to speak up
for its right to Administrate, Alter, or Abolish the government as the people see
fit. If no one speaks up about any right, this can, under the present Age of Irrationality,
be interpreted to mean the people have no rights because they never publicly declared
they wanted any. So We The People must protest long and loud enough to silence the
din of idiocy it is being subjected to by the present form of government insanity
reflected in the falsity of its Democracy.

In presenting the idea for the need to establish a Cenocracy (New Government),
it is important to make a few references that were systematically gathered, one
after the other, by typing in "actual democracy" as the internet search criteria
via the 'goggle' links engine. The reason for doing this is to show that the idea
for wanting to establish an Actual Democracy is not an isolated intellectual
endeavor. The following are just a few examples:

And though, inasmuch as the above list is intended to describe a few instances
of an "Actual Democracy", or at least provide a platform for comparing differences
in models of Democracy... throughout the world there are those striving for some
initial and sustained representative semblance of a Democracy, typically using some
model such as that used by the U.K. or America as a desirable character to pursue...
yet are unwittingly encouraged through an extensive education process; into adopting
one or another Democratic model which defines the two-word phrase "Representative
Government" to an extent the people themselves are marginalized from being an actual
and active part of the "Checks and Balances" governing strategem— and are largely
disenfranchised from having a direct participatory role in actual self Representation,
both individually and collectively. If the people force those in governing positions
to allow them to be heard, what is said carries little weight and may well be ignored,
because the people do not have an on-going means of directly affecting laws.

In the foregoing short list of alternative views on Democracy, some nonetheless
are seeking some measure of a Cenocracy. To this end, let me place at least one
reference; that which is presently occurring in Taiwan with respect to student
activists storming the Ministry of Education, with a three-demand focus, even though
many other struggles occurring throughout the world could be listed.

Here are their three demands:

Education Minister Wu Se-hwa's resignation, the mothballing of the new textbook
guidelines (because they promote a pro-China view), and that the ministry drop all
charges against the students.

In a separate internet search, using the words "We The People" with a deliberate attempt
at securing the address for a "We The People" organization:

http://www.wethepeople-wtp.org/

Here's another variety of a one-stop-shopping for Democracy on the internet. It is
but one of several variations much like shopping at a Walmart, corner drug store,
convenience store, Big Lots, Family Dollar, etc... (that so many of us use). Such an
analogy is not a disparagement, it is a simple comparison illustrating the lack of
an Actual Democracy, with respect to fairness. For example, not all products
available are being offered. Only those that the store merchandise buyers want to
provide to consumers in order to get the greatest return. If the public is buying
into one or another product, this is the product which will be pushed onto the
public shelves of journalism. Then again, as it sometimes happens, journalists can
work together to sell a little known product because it is advantageous for them
to do so:

http://www.democracynow.org/

The next link is to the Congressionally fundedNational Endowment for Democracy:

Here is an interesting annotated explication of addressed efforts oriented towards
government reform with a focus on what some may call progress through re-Establishment:

We are not revolutionaries or reformers – we are restorers. We believe
the best way to reconcile government with Liberty today is by returning to the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Constitutional Rights PAC exists to advocate
Constitutional governance and remind elected servants of the oaths they swore to
uphold.

Despite the claims for not being revolutionaries or reformers; with respect to
contrasting the mindset of those who favor the government's activities as they are
being played out under the notion of (ahem) progress... a desire to return to some
former Constitution and Bill of Rights usage would indeed be Revolutionary! and its
proponents as Reformers!, even if they prefer some humbler reference. Yet, how far
back do we go to reach some purer state of being? And again, as has so often been
the problem, who is to decide how such documents are to be interpreted as well as
defined? Such a situation is all the more troubling when even the earliest of
uses had marginalized the effective Will of the People, both selectively and
collectively from a thorough participation in their government. While such a return
to some assumed former age of Well being is accepted at face value with all due
sincerity and deference, it is clear that the original documents were short-sighted...
not to mention that it is decidedly difficult for us to return to some former Age
with all the information and experiences we have amassed, not to mention the ongoing
deterioration of the environment having deleterious effects on the biology of all
species. When the presiding formula of the government has systematically burnt so
many bridges by having developed so many convoluted laws such as denying us the basic
right of overthrowing the government or else be faced with an imprisonment or fine,
we are unable to return to any former past perspective. The government has systematically
shreaded former documents and then re-taped them into self-serving arrangements, yet
claim such reconstructions are the originals.

On the one hand, we have those who speak of an Actual Democracy with an
expressed Peoples Legislative Branch formula which is a structure to be implemented
in addition to (as part of an overall structural change) with the current singular
usage of a so-called Representative Legislative Branch; and those that are inclined
to lean towards the current formula of Representative Democracy as its best emblematic
practice by inferring that a claim for an Actual Democracy is synonymous with
some presumed notion of perfection denoted as a Pure Democracy akin to a
Mobacratic rule that would invariably lead us into an anarchy. Such thinking is a
perspective held by those who are unwilling or unable to think outside the box of
their brought-up-into conventionalisms because they have learned to navigate within
the present channels of social discord to best advantage themselves or are those
simply fearful of change.

By arguing against the implementation of an "Actual Democracy" cast into some
"Pure" image... so as to evoke some pseudo-standard common sense notion that only
(a) God is perfect leaving humans to be particularly fallible and imperfect; it is
therefore logical (to them) that the foremost possibility, potentiality and probability...
which by-the-way, ideally serves to bolster and promote their practiced rationale,
is uniquely complimented by the believed in familiarity and comprehensive grasp of
the present monkey-faced brand of democracy they see themselves in. Without going
into a deeper discussion of the topic, suffice it to say, via a simplistic metaphor,
that the U.S. like other nations on the globe, is a dog chasing its own tail (by way
of a circular model of practiced politics) that customarily chases the tails of others,
or wants others to chase its tail... and those running in a Presidential election
within the present structure of the so-called Democracy, want to be the top dog
leading the pack in the chase... or some other peculiarly reminiscent Representative-led
mobacratic (mobocratic) canine activity.

While those involved no doubt believe they are promoting the greater Cause of Democracy,
no doubt many of them fully realize that the type of Democracy being supported in their
efforts falls far short of an expressed Actual Democracy. In effect, in many
instances, the kind of Democracy being advocated is the lesser of two evils. It is
like a prisoner imprisoned in a torture chamber finding one abusive jailer a little
less abusive than another one. However, the person remains imprisoned and is taught
to imagine the realization of a greater level of freedom from a jailer named Democracy
as opposed to a jailer named Socialism or Communism or Religion, or Business.

We The People are continually fraught with choosing between the lesser of two or
more evils even if better alternatives exist, because they are not being offered
since their participation would exclude the evils from grand-standing the political
lime-light such as during an election. And to argue that while the present Democracy
is not perfect but nonetheless is a viable consolation prize, because it is the best
we humans can so far accomplish under the circumstances and increased burgeoning social
complexity... such an expression is an excuse masquerading as a plausible answer to
detracting fault finders. While such characters have been troublesome since they often
offered little more than some dichotomy that was self-serving, those of use pursuing
the present form of condemnation are offering a different respite by way of a multi-
serving Cenocracy. Plain and simple, We The People want a better formula of governance,
no matter what it is eventually to be labeled. If we need a new word to describe a
better formula of governance, than so be it.

Each of these institutions (Communism, Democracy, Plutocracy, Socialism, Business,
Religion, etc., which includes charities), maintains the same basic ideology of
acceptable (social) confinement and segregation— because each claims they know
better, that they know "The Way", as measured against what they believe to be a lesser
value of some other belief... each with their own self-determined value flavorings and
definitions of freedom, justice, liberty, prosperity, equality, fraternity, wealth
redistribution, medical treatment, fairness, literacy, poverty, wealth, cultural
identity, good, bad, right, wrong, etc... Some of them fully realize that the brand
of Democracy, Socialism or Communism (etc.) that they are pedaling is a falsified
expression provided under the guise of an ideal-to-be-achieved, yet never strive for
anything better because they get a share of the available wealth in the capacity they
hold, even while thousands and millions of others suffer. The presently fashioned
Congressionally funded Democracy organization is a government organ of propaganda
for a type of Democracy that is light years away from what is possible to achieve
when its veil of duplicity is rent in two... if only its leaders had the vision to
see it into a practice beyond mere philosophical discussions based on a myopic
relativity.

In the above list, with respect to the the Princeton study link, I had to italicize
and underline the expression "no longer". It's rather humorous since it is
doubtful that the world has ever seen an "Actual" democracy, particularly not the
United States nor Britain, for all the assertions those in authority may want to
suggest otherwise... at least with respect to a large nation. Whereas many have claimed
that America's Democracy is foremost, as if it were a god-like representation of
supremacy without equal, no one has ever actually seen nor experienced this
Democracy. It is laughably ludicrous to think that some people really believe that
the brand of democracy being practiced today is an actual democracy! The only
thing supreme is their naivete'.

And for those arguing that a system of government which supports an Actual
Democracy would present us with a chaotic situation. Well, Duh... all governments
have been set up by way of some type of chaos, some disorder, disarray, dissension,
and disruption in mental as well as emotional routines. Of course there will be
the necessity of adjustments being made since... while the present structure becomes
non-sensical as it grows in size because it is inherently formulated on a few "managing"
the majority and is not provisioned with a means to coherently work well when the
size of a government increases... a Cenocracy will provide us will a formula which
permits the larger majority to effectively participate in their government. When
we hear politicians vying for smaller government (though their definition of "smaller"
may not be your definition), this strategy is in fact needed for the present structure
to function at its best within its given scaffolding, though it is a blueprint of a
straw and stick hut. In order to provide a means for the larger public to have a
greater voice and control of "their" government (as part of an Actual Democracy),
a different scaffolding is required.

With the adoption of a New Government requiring the application of a new mentality,
there will be expressed moments of social exuberance that some may refer to as unrest,
disarray or even chaos, because they will be uncertain of where they fit in. Some
people quite easily adapt more readily to change than others, though a few will find
change very difficult to accept and remain antagonistic. Animals that have been caged
for long periods of time may even be apprehensive about leaving the cage... taking
time before they decide to test the waters. While we humans are at present still
locked in the cage of the Earth's environment, a Cenocracy will permit us to free
us from the fetters imposed upon us by our present governments that are turning
to increased cooperation amongst businesses and religions to decrease the length
of the chain by applying the pressures of a concerted spying-on-the-public that
produce self-absorption ("selfie" orientation) as a product of self-consciousness
imposed by the presence of a dictatorial type of Big Brother who wants to keep
tabs on everyone, at all times, and direct their behavior along those channels
those in authority feel best serves the purpose of life as they define it.

People have been taught to accept that they need to defer to elected Representatives,
aligned with one or another reasons not to think otherwise... including the accusation
that in doing so one is anti-social, unpatriotic, insane or harbor some other undesirable
character. Such a view also says that "Self-Representation" as disclosed and advocated
by an Actual Democracy must occur in accordance with an activity which minimizes,
thwarts and even directly impedes the effort or result... such as by way of an
"Initiative and Referendum" practice that plays the part of putting the Will of The
People in the status of an After-thought or infrequently used Hail-Mary pass thrown
up field to some desired future goal. Clearly, a Cenocracy movement will play a hand
in educating the public to think anew its role as The Government. A democracy is the
biggest government in the world. For those candidates calling for decreasing the
size of government, is a tell-tale sign they neither appreciate what an Actual
Democracy is nor that we do not at present practice one. The present government
practice is a various conglomeration of Plutocratic Aristocracies that thrives when
the size of government is minimized. Politicians do not know how to effectively lead
in the presence of an Actual Democracy. A Plutocratic Aristocracy can not function
well if it has too many authoritative members... particularly when many of them
strive to singularly dominate and not function as a true democracy.

Yes, increasing the size of government in terms of giving the people a greater
voice and truly meaningful vote, will lead to conflict when confronted by those
who want to maintain the present formula of Democracy. But how we define or describe
the word "chaos" may more-so describe and define those who are arguing not for
improvement, but a desire to retain some order that they themselves prefer because
of its familiarity and their learned ability to navigate a certain type of social
stream of thought and action for personalized agendas. Some want the overall social
stream to reflect presumed religious ideals or a business environment that they can
take advantage of, or some other peculiarly advantageous preference. For example,
one individual supporting the status quo not only teaches textbook ideas concerning
government, but has begun to rise in a higher position within their religious community.
They think that a venture towards establishing an Actual Democracy will lead only
to disruptions in our lives... as described in the regimes of interpretation being
fostered by the ideas promoted in textbooks used to support the current (falsified)
Democracy...

In other words, anything that appears to be different than promoting what is
conventionally written and believed should be avoided, because they are on a personal
trek of increasing both income and social status within the structure as it is being
presented and practiced. They don't want to be detoured from the trail upon which
they see bread-crumbs to follow in improving their lives. They are like many others
who might well argue against a Cenocracy because a change in the social order means
they would have to work out a new social and economic strategy for themselves and
their family. They may well be quick to argue against anything which appears to be
a wedge placed between the social trail being mapped out in their personal efforts.
While they may be genuinely considerate of others and sincerely want the best for
their community and humanity, present circumstances dictates a measure of self-concern
over larger national and global interests being promoted by the idea of a Cenocracy.

Chaos may be called arguments, disagreements, opposition, skirmishes, strikes,
dysfunctions, protests, Revolutions, riots, battles, wars, engagements, conflicts
or whatever... such activities frequently precede the establishment of a treaty,
resolution, charter, contract, Constitution, etc... Nonetheless, the people eventually
see a clearing through all the fog. The present form of government is not a fog, it
is a bog which mires the people in a hole that promotes conditions of spinning our
wheels. Yes, the establishment of a Cenocracy, an Actual Democracy, may well produce
a time of Chaos. But the people will work through it and prevail. Nations are built
by do-it-yourselfers. It is time for the people to get out of their dugouts and
collectively step up to the plate.

We The People need a means, mechanism, method by which we can alter governing
policy on any and all levels we are being subjected to from the actions of business,
government or religion. Present systems promote obstacles. For example, those in
the United States are confronted by a ludicrous Electoral College usage in the
selection of a President, and have no readily available means, except by way of a
Revolution to remove an elected person should they prove to be an idiot moments
(or days, weeks, months) after they have taken the Presidential oath. The Electoral
System is but one of many different kinds of political doping activities being
permitted by the present non-Actual Democracy being practiced. The falsified Democracy
being practiced promotes a culture in which various political doping activities
are allowed before, during and after a political race. It is the same type of
culture which has encouraged the usage of doping in sports, and is being used in
intellectual venues as well, though ascribed with names such as nutrition, energy
enhancement, surgical alterations, etc... People are using various stimulants to
give themselves an edge. The political environment permits those in political positions
to assist them in perpetuating their dominance over the collective Will of the people.
Some people will be against the adoption of an Actual Democracy because it upsets
their believed-in measures of control that they have learned to use for personal
gain or personal manipulation of others to keep them from assertions. Like a person
wanting one or more others to suffer as they are, there are those who interpret
their wealth by keeping others to wallow in the same distress they experience,
however that distress may be defined and measured... and do not want anyone to
gain if they themselves are not in a similar vein of comparable achievement.

In explication, because I have encountered even educated people misinterpreting
the idea of a Peoples Legislative Branch: The adoption of an Actual Democracy being
promoted by the idea of a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic Formula proposing a Peoples
Legislative Branch is not meant to be a substitution for present Legislative processes.
In is an addition to the current formula of governance. It is a means,
mechanism, method by which the people can make direct changes to governing policies
even if those in government feel or think their views are tantamount to being
sacrosanct. For example, if the Will of the people doesn't like the policies being
promoted and pursued by the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches, the people
should and must be able to direct the actions of the Nation otherwise. This same
ability of the people should be afforded them on the Local and State levels. No
branch of government or person in those capacities of governance are infallible. The
present means, mechanisms and methods of policy alteration or disusage are pathetic
excuses for having an Actual Democracy. We need a new form of government to correct
the nonsense we are being subjected to. We need a Cenocracy!

In addition to the foregoing list of examples of discussion concerning Democracy,
for those interested in the Tax Protest Movement, you should see the dark
side of activity some of its proprietors have constructed:

If you disagree with the tax structure, or that taxes are being used wrongly,
or that taxes are illegitimate, or whatever, then we need to change the structure
of government. Committing or instigating combatant activities is tantamount to the
antics of an adolescent with a chip on their shoulder. Killing an IRS agent or bombing
a federal agency is not going to alter the tax structure. Such activities are like
pulling a spark plug wire from a running vehicle and expect the engine to perform
better. Depending on the number of cylinders, the engine will interpretively miss,
noticeably falter or stop running altogether. However, as it is presently structured,
it is multi- and not singularly- cylindered... as well as having multiple and not
just two strokes in its cycling modality. Simply stated, the government is not a
two-stroke engine.

Don't expect the killing of a government agent or destruction of government
property to be commensurate with putting a potato in the tail pipe, sugar (etc.)
in the gas tank or some other mechanism of sabotage. This only makes many of those
in government and many in the citizenry, angry against the perpetrators whose main
diplomacy gives the impression of being heavy-handedness and an exercise in a like-minded
bullyism. Killing and destruction are actions of last resort... after the public
has protested en masse (in support thereof because all diplomatic efforts have failed
to accomplish the Will of the People). Assuming to know that Will without
having attempted to formulate a petition, is self-deception. Taxes do a lot of good
when appropriately directed. It is not that taxes are bad, but those who are in charge
of using them under legislated guidelines frequently apply taxes poorly. If We The
People think we can do a better job at governance, then let's change the structure
of government by creating a New Government (a Cenocracy) which promotes an Actual
Democracy beyond its present superficiality. The new formula will thus be a
type of Cenocratic formula.

On this date (Tuesday, June 23, 2015), we find the following on the MSN Home page:

WASHINGTON — No actor or actress can match Meryl Streep's 19 Academy Award nominations,
and only Katharine Hepburn has bested her three Oscars for acting. So maybe it's
conceivable that Streep's letter Tuesday to each member of Congress can somehow
revive the Equal Rights Amendment, politically dormant since its high-water mark
four decades ago.

"I am writing to ask you to stand up for equality - for your mother, your daughter,
your sister, your wife or yourself - by actively supporting the Equal Rights Amendment,"
Streep writes. Each packet includes a copy of "Equal Means Equal," a book by Jessica
Neuwirth, president of the ERA Coalition.

While her actions are laudable, it is rather stupid that We The People of 2015
would have to even be discussing something as common-sensical as Equal Rights. No
less, her voice shouldn't have any more import than the voice of a petitioning
public or any of us asking for the same thing. The fact that the media chooses to
imply a portrayal of Streep's acting career has having more merit than the career,
advocation or protracted ardent interest of others is another example of different
forms of cultural nonsense the public is subjected to. In addition, it is not
Congress that should be deciding on the adoption of an ERA, but the whole of the
public. And to this we can add the question about the Confederate flag, Homosexuality,
and numerous other issues that should be decided by the public. If the people in the
South want the Confederate flag, that should be their collective decision and not
some collection of Legislators whose arrogance claims they have cornered the market
on intelligence, wisdom and numerous other qualities... and thus entitles them to
impose their minority will on the majority. The same goes for Judges who legislate
laws from their Judicial bench, such as the Supreme Court that needs to have its
abilities contoured to the Will of The People. The country does not belong to the
Legislators, Judges, Business executives, Media Conglomerates or Religious
leaders, it belongs to the people! We need a new form of government to put such
legislative, legal, business and religious idiocy into the dustbin of history. The
present form of government should be in a museum. We need a Cenocracy! Speakers
and Writers of social reform need to get your heads out of your back pockets and
demand a Cenocracy!

On this date: (Saturday, June 27, 2015) we find the following on the MSN home page:

When Friday began, there were 14 states where same-sex couples still could not
legally marry. By the afternoon — after a confusing day of orders and counter-orders
by governors, attorneys general and county clerks — couples had married in all of
them but one.

The one holdout was Louisiana. There, Attorney General James D. “Buddy” Caldwell
(R) condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide,
as “federal government intrusion into what should be a state issue.”

Whereas the Attorney General for Louisiana got it right about government intrusiveness,
he got it wrong about the ownership of the issue. His usage of the word "State" does
not refer to the majority of the people, but a minority labeled as a Legislature or
as a Judicial decree. What a ridiculous notion of "rule by the people" described as
a Democracy. The question about same-sex marriage and its social placement should be
left up to the people. Not the judges, not the Legislators... the people. We The
People need a new form of government. A Cenocracy with a Cenocratic Formula.

In different moments of history we encounter alterations in the conceptual frame-work
of humanity which compresses multiple enterprises, ideas, actions, etc., into a
singularity. For example, before the concept of a singular God, there was a wide-
spread reliance on multiple gods. The same goes for the development of a National
military which was preceded by divergently acting combat groups. Instead of separate
street vendors hawking their wares without warranties, we now have stores. The
same can be said for education, science, currency, technology, and multiple other
activities, for better or worse... because we permit them to deteriorate. The presence
of multiple social problems and an ineffectual government structure demands that
we address the situation with a similar contemplation of focused action. Protesting
for a Cenocracy does this.

And it should be noted, for those interested, that typing in the word "Occupy"
will provide various examples of those involved with the "Occupy Movement", that
has now received a singular definition being ascribed to it in a Wikipedia article:

The Occupy movement is the international branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement
that protests against social and economic inequality around the world, its primary
goal being to make the economic and political relations in all societies less
vertically hierarchical and more flatly distributed. Local groups often have
different focuses, but among the movement's prime concerns deal with how large
corporations (and the global financial system) control the world in a way that
disproportionately benefits a minority, undermines democracy, and is unstable. It
is part of what Manfred Steger calls the "global justice movement".

Before the word "Occupy" there was the "Sit In". And before this one might speak
of the "Stand IN" used by some workers staging a protest at their jobs. In the past,
there was the "Boxer" rebellion in China; a word coined by a Journalist to denote
the two-fisted expression of protestors related to a perspective involving personal
protection developed by way of a practiced regime. Another example is the French
Revolution which is frequently denoted by the usage of the guillotine, though other
references also exist. In other times and other places, there were specific
characteristics which did or could have been used to define a group... instead of
the ideology being supported. This is a short-coming that protestors need to overcome
so as to forestall being identified with something that suits the whim or impulsivity
of someone influential enough to propose that which might be used as a disparagement.
As protestors seeking an expressed and truly practiced Actual Democracy, let us
promote our own Moniker(s) with the words "Cenocracy, Cenocrats, and Cenocratic Formula"
to define ourselves because these advance an encompassing ideology.

If we take the efforts of those wanting to establish an "Actual Democracy" as a
prima facie account of sincerity to speak of that which is felt and thought to be
a more fair... a more equitable distribution and practice of the trinitarian sets
typically displayed as Of, By, For All the people and Equality, Justice,
Liberty; then by this same recurring veracity of expression we must acknowledge
they are all asking for the establishment of a "New Government". When we translate
this two-word phrase into a singular concept, we come up with Cenocracy. It is little different than using the singular word
"Democracy" to denote the two-word phrase of "people rule" though it may be literally
taken to explicate the longer phrase of "rule by the people."

However, I have been encountering otherwise articulate people having some difficulty
pronouncing the word "Cenocracy". Whereas there is a "C", they are replacing it
with a "K", so let me walk others through the pronunciation:

Keep the word "Democracy" in mind.

Bring the time period "Cenozoic" to mind which begins with a type of "S" sound.

Replace the "Demo" in Democracy with "Ceno" and use the "S" sounding 'S-eno'.

And there you have it. Cenocracy. Instead of having a "Demo" (as in a
superficial Demonstration or a many-generations removed facsimile) of a government,
we can move on to the real, the "Actual Democracy" by adopting a Cenocracy. The
"Demo" that has been displayed for centuries as if it were a product being sold by
carpet-bagging hucksters, needs to have its snake oil remedies replaced with an
honest functionality. All those in favor, say CENOCRACY!

Note: We presently are in the Cenozoic era. It would appear rather appropriate
for us to begin a Cenocratic Epoch despite the claims for an Anthropocene Epoch
because of humanity's effects on the environment. However, we might, if permitted
a measure of creative license, want to engage in some amalgamation and produce a
term such as "Anthropo-cenocratic-scene Epoch".

Using the word "Cenocracy" does not mean you advocate everything being brought
up on the Cenocracy.org site. Similarly, you may use the word "Democracy" in conversation
but this doesn't mean you agree with the formula being practiced. It's alright to
use the word "Cenocracy" in reference to the desire for a 'New Government' without
having to adopt all the ideas being discussed at this site. Coined words are a part
of the process for developing a new vision requiring a new vocabulary so that others
may see differences more clearly.

Those of us writing with the intent of stirring public opinion to adopt the notion
of a Cenocracy, can not expect someone else to take the lead and draw a line in the
sand against the prevailing phoney (non-actual) democratic governments.
We are at point... to use a military term to describe the vanguard
of a mission being undertaken. While some of us writers and spokes-persons are waiting
for others to begin a protest march so that we can join in, these same others are
expecting the same of us... in a type of "you go first" deference which blurs the
line between confidence, courage and politeness. Those trying to use the internet to
stir up emotions (or incipient intellectual prowess) in order to get a following
that they can then exploit to make a buck off of through paid subscriptions or
advertising gimmickry... must put their own time, energy and money where their mouth
is. You must stop measuring your assumed worth by how many people are counted as
having viewed one or more internet pages you author. Viewing, interest, and understanding
are different animals and not simply quirks of one's personality. If Facebook or
some equivalent had existed during Einstein's fledgling years when he first introduced
his 1905— to-become monumental papers, the lack of understanding he received
from the then physic's community would have been translated into disappointment.
The physic's community was wholly unprepared for such a visionary trek into a new
era of conceptualization. His ideas were far removed from the common sense of the
then established professionals. Fortunately, there wasn't any superficial
internet-worth-valuation and he prevailed by way of old fashioned patience,
perseverance and personalized persistence. The public had to be trained how
to think differently. This was not only true for Einstein's ideas, but Germ theory,
Heliocentricism, Radio, Telephone, Television, Computing, Animal husbandry, etc.,
etc., etc...

Writers and speakers of social problems and inequalities need to stop acting like
gossip mongerers blurting out some impromptu expression from the crowd... and begin
the measure of leadership they want someone else to assume. The "leadership" to which
I speak of in this context is ideological. The idea of adopting a Cenocracy provides
us with a footing, a cornerstone, an editable blueprint.

Millions of people may well feel as we do but they do not know that we exist...
much less our ideas meant to assist them in their lives. But even if they did know,
this does not mean they would readily join in a protest march. If you look back
upon history, Revolutions, Revolts, and Riots do not involve the direct
participation of the majority, like those who watch a parade, sporting event, or
courtroom drama. For the most part, most people remain physically detached from
directly participating in protests for one or another reason (age infirmity, illness,
injury, location, transportation issues, work schedule, child care, etc...), though
they may be emotionally and intellectually supportive from a distance. We can not
expect everyone to crop, drop, or stop everything they are doing to directly join
in chanting a protest slogan because we are beating some drum... especially if we
are waiting for a crowd to gather so that a position of authority can be assumed
by us yet we are not willing to initiate the leadership.

No doubt there are many people who would make a suitable leader in our efforts
to promote, design and establish a Cenocracy. But the word "leadership" has multiple
definitions related to context. The word leadership may mean 'office manager' to
describe a person's competent managerial actions but don't necessarily entail an
ability of path-finding foresight sometimes referred to as the unique quality of
a visionary. Many would-be great leaders go unrecognized, are confined to a mediocre
role, simply because they don't end up in a position which encourages their historical
debut. Take any number of leaders in politics, science, medicine, music, art, etc.,
and place them in different time periods or context, and they may not have been
able to shine as brightly.

And yet, there are those who already hold public positions of leadership that
might do a better job for us but need us to promote the social and political context
for them to step into the fore-front on behalf of the people. They don't want to
jeopardize their present position by advocating one or more ideas that may be unfamiliar
to most or that they are not to articulate as well as some pro-Cenocracy author,
whether or not the word "Cenocracy" is being used. New ideas, particularly those
which evoke some measure of uncertainty can breed fear if they are promoted as such
by those who prefer to promote the familiar because they now how to navigate the
avenues of a false Democracy and would be lost if the Highway of an Actual Democracy
was constructed and found to be a more viable route for the present day and age and
our future. It is up to us to provide the impetus for promoting their leadership
abilities to blossom in the direction of the brighter light we are presenting for
consideration. If they refuse to lead us, then let them follow our lead. If they
the refuse both roles, then they should be forced to vacate the premises. One thing
is certain, we can not permit those in governing positions, however described, to
perpetuate the present nonsense.

Those of us providing a would-be forum for a few to vent their views must
acknowledge that this recipe of public expression is not a nationally recognized
forum for discussing social issues which has any legal standing with respect to
creating laws. We The People are not heard because we frequently are not listened
to unless some assertiveness is applied... typically by way of protest or riot. Yet,
these acts do not guarantee we will be heard nor that our opinions will be heard
or if heard, not contoured to the opinions of those in authority we want to actually
and honestly address issues according to the views of a public who must make their
interests known by way of extraordinary measures called the initiative and referendum.
If politicians were expected to carry out legislation by the same methodology they
have imposed on the people, they would thus get just as discouraged and angered as
the people themselves have become... despite all the problems now faced by legislators
because of the massive amounts of information required to survey for even a single
bill's consideration.

Likewise, those of us providing one or another topic that we think should be
voted on by the public must accept the realization that the would-be vote has no
bearing with respect to altering laws. There is no process by which We The People
can consistently and effectively introduce ideas for improving governing processes
and the establishment of laws. Only a new structure in government will insure this
for the People. We need a Cenocracy in order to establish the public's right to have
political clout that is not minimized, derailed, or otherwise marginalized into
neglibility by a host of bureaucratic stalemating and obfuscation. All of us
interested in bringing about an Actual Democracy, though the present definition may
nonetheless be vague, mired with multiple concerns and considerations, have got to
establish a joint dialogue of speaking in unison. If you want to be personally
recognized for your views and efforts, that is fine, but all of us must move beyond
our personalizations and develop a concerted effort to move Upward, Forward and
Onward together.

All our web pages amount to little more than pissing on a fire hydrant to mark
some imagined territory of internet discussion and viability. The desire to establish
a Cenocracy does not belong to you, or to me, but to everyone. Our desire for a
Cenocracy, is extremely serious... even if the word Cenocracy has not yet
entered into your personal vocabulary as yet. Our message to the public and those
in Authority must be clear and unequivocal. We do not want a mob of people
protesting individual interests which are not concentrated into a singular effort
by which those individual interests can be addressed and have legalized political
merit; should they become adopted by way of a nationalized referendum process owned
and operated by the public that has full legal authority to draft laws. It is
senseless for a mob of people to be marching in protest and yet the public is left
in the void while seeking some centralized theme to focus on in order to be
supportive thereof. All of us must speak together in unison. We have got to
stop pissing on personalized fire hydrants or humping the leg of some numinous
passer-by philosophy. I am not trying to be vulgar, but universally communicative
with expressions most people will be able to easily visualize and correlate to an
exercised human effort. We must work together and establish a singularly focused
dialogue, despite all the rough edges to be encountered in our initial fledgling
attempts to get off the ground.

The variety of web pages espousing views against this, that and another perceived
wrong or injustice and thus providing a reason (or at least some presumed viable
excuse) for developing an action (typically in the opposite direction but is
nonetheless felt to be better), yet whose architecture may or may not be clearly
outlined... are often being conducted as a type of personalized popularity campaign.
Such web pages want more readership as if quantity is to be correlated with quality
and thus produce, unintentionally, the fomenting of a mobacratic orientation where
those involved can recognize themselves with a superficial label such as being one
of the 99%, as if it were some emblematic patch of distinction to be flown as a flag,
worn as a shoulder patch, or used as a three-symboled identification card (9- 9- %)...
and thus, for a few, becomes a type of would-be authoritative voice enabling an
aggressive demeanor with little need for accountability or oversight in a mirror-image
fashion of government officials who, on occasion, do the same to the public... for
example: (C- I- A), (F- B- I), (N- S- A), (I- R- S),
(etc...), even though those carrying such distinctions may not consider themselves
as participating in any questionable behavior at any time, and most, we want to
believe, are sincerely directed towards various public protections.

These otherwise well-meaning web pages advancing themselves as a would-be public
forum for airing opinions about perceived unfairness, without having to say it, are
treating the public as if it were a herd of semi-domesticated animals that they are
trying to stampede into a large protest that they can claim credit for... and
possibly use as a tool to make social changes as they think they should be... yet
they themselves don't have to participate in the front-line trenches with everyone
else and suffer the possible consequences of direct confrontation with authority.
If need be, they want others to be sprayed with water, gassed, beaten, or arrested,
while they remain safe and sound at a distance like some general giving commands
to those fighting hundreds or thousands of miles away.

The usage of a website which provides for revealing multiple social issues is
like a soda-dispensing machine or a dine-in restaurant featuring a smorgasbord of
different food-stuffs to whet a variety of appetites in order to attract multiple
perspectives to acquire a larger quantity of readers... but not necessarily a
broader quality in order to create the mood for a protest to begin in unison. For
example, the stampede of protests in the occupy movement, though many of the
participants were sincerely interested in bringing about progressive social changes;
others acted more like animals having drank from the same
Adbusters pool (or trough) laced with loco-weed, a substance some readers may
not be too familiar with since it is rarely spoken of and has infrequently been
mentioned in old (U.S. cowboy) westerns:

Locoweed: any of several species of poisonous plants of the genera
Astragalus and Oxytropis, in the pea family (Fabaceae), native to the prairies of
north central and western North America. Locoweeds pose a danger to livestock,
horses, and other grazing animals, because they contain a toxin that affects:

muscle control,

frenzied behaviour,

impaired vision,

and sometimes death.

Most locoweeds, however, are unpalatable to livestock and are eaten only when other
forage is unavailable. The level of toxicity appears to depend on soil conditions;
decaying locoweeds release toxins sometimes taken up by otherwise harmless forage
crops. (Locoweed article. (2013). Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.)

The above list of symptoms seems not only to reflect many of those in authoritative
positions, but some protest efforts as well. The "forage" is metaphorically aligned
with ideas. Hence, when no definitive, collaborative effort (by way of a focused
perspective) is available, the human herd ruminates on whatever is nearby.

It is beyond credulity for anyone wanting to take credit for creating a dis-joint-ed
political effort promoted by what appears to many in the public as different groups
of people having passed around the same Marijuana cigarette or pipe while listening
to the old Beatles song about having a Revolution. It is time for those advocating
a Revolution to stand at the front line with their own banner such as that presented
in the heading and related comments can be found on:

Some authors feel obliged to express their humility through honesty. This
being said, they would like readers to be aware that their ideas about the
development of a Cenocratic government is a work-in-progress. They freely admit
they make mistakes and revise their ideas from time to time... and that they
are not perfect... but are seeking to per-fect a Cenocratic Ideal. While there
are a few who will no doubt view Cenocracy as reverently as those seeking to
per-fect a Christian Ideal, or an Islam Ideal, or a Buddhist Ideal, or a Bahai
Ideal, or a Judaic Ideal, or a Latter-Day Saint Ideal, or a Democratic Ideal,
or a Socialism Ideal, or an Economic Ideal,... etc., others will come to
acknowledge it as a commonly adopted philosophical perspective. There are some
who have already begun to refer to themselves as Cenocrats and have made note
of such on their personal pages such as Facebook. In other venues they may well
refer to themselves with a "We The People" identity. For one reason or another,
their minds are already geared for an upcoming future... that they know is
needed and must be realized if humanity is to prosper beyond its many present
inequalities perpetrated by so many so-called Authoritative Ideals advanced in
present Business, Government and Religious cultures that treat the public as a
dues- paying, on-call or cue-card "participating" audience whose own collective
voice is minimized in terms of self-representation and maximized for those
whose practiced authority is much like a puppeteer who threatens the public as
if We The People are a puppet whose sole purpose for existence is to
suffer for them or else they will:

Throw we the puppet-people into a fire (the
religion puppeteer).

Ostracise/disenfranchise we the puppet-people (the
government puppeteer).

Extort*[exploit]we the puppet-people (the business
puppeteer)...

...That is, if we the puppet-people don't refrain from seeking to
Declare a Greater Independence which provides for an actual parity in a fair
redistribution of Equality, Justice and Liberty... as well as socio-political
power, instead of keeping us bound to insecurities derived from perpetrated
fears of which many are contrived-into-actuality so as to promote further
dependency on them for everything they care to promote as being necessary and
needed so as to ensure their sovereignty over the people.

*More than a few think that businesses all too often migrate
towards a type of pure, no holds barred Capitalistic perspective which
primarily evinces a collective orientation towards fulfilling motives of
insatiable greed... instead of retaining a centralized Humanistic goal which
may have helped to initiate the objectives of the business in the first
place and thus prefer to use the felonious word "extortion" instead of its
socially deprecated counter-part known as "exploitation"... with respect to
those efforts; and pejoratively denoted as tactics of manipulation
which are used to get the public to purchase their respective product(s)
affixed with a self-promoting ideology.

This too is true for Congressional legislation, Supreme Court adjudication,
and the wielding of Executive 'power' which, by an antiquated Constitutional
design, engage in an anti-trust (we can't trust them) monopolization against
The Right Of The People ToDIRECTLYParticipate In Their Own Governanceby
way of a Cenocracy (New Government) which provides for a Peoples
Legislative Branch and a fully functional, non-hoop jumping process of
Referendum that presently requires the usage of some politically degenerate signatory
requirement designed as an obstacle, by way of a politicized rationality, in order
to obfuscate an effective "Will of the People" social governance formula.

A "Representative" form of government as presently
practiced permits the people to INDIRECTLY participate in their own
governance... thus (metaphorical speaking), exhibits the practice of a
shadow, echo, and meta-physical government which frequently contours the Will
of The People through a prism of distortion and leads society into a state of
greater dysfunctionality which has a reverberating influence on other cultures to
sometimes mimic a like-minded caricature of neurosis. Such a state of affairs is
unconscionable and must be remedied... peacefully or otherwise. Make no mistake...
We are on the path towards a Revolution. Viva La Cenocratic Revolution!

Historians should likewise make at least some marginalia comment of these
earliest of beginnings as a reference for those who will have a different sense
of social self-governing perspicuity in the future. Historians of the future
will want to know which Historians of the past were aware of the beginning of a
new future that, when viewed retrospectively from ages hence, will be a realized
present, and the present we know of today will be a past that none may refer to
as the "good old days" that used to, at least sentimentally, play out in colloquial
conversations a few decades ago, but is remarkably absent from various forms of
dialogue (print, television, radio...) in these "teenage" (2013, 2014, 2015, etc...)
years of the 21st Century. Such comments are not an expression of a delusive
grandeur (delusion of grandeur), but of Cenocracy's genealogy in-the-making.
Imagine if the people in the past had the foresight for keeping absolutely accurate
and honest records of everyone that was ever born and to whom they are actually
linked by biology, ideology and sociology.***